[libreplanet-discuss] Teaching programming and free software to those who can listen (and everybody else, too)

[Fabio Pesari]

tl;dr: The free software community should teach as many people as it
       can about programming and free software. The best that can
       happen is that those people contribute to free software, and the
       worst is that they become aware of free software and learn how
       computers work, which might encourage them to reject nonfree
       software even if they don't end up becoming developers. Win-win.

There are many courses nowadays which aim to teach programming
(especially in schools) at zero cost, but those are usually funded by
corporations who develop proprietary software and want to promote their
own agendas and walled gardens, as well as lower the wages of
future programmers (which goes against their purposes, since it will
inevitably encourage independent crowdfunding).

The free software community should do its best to make sure that when
people are taught about programming, there isn't any bias toward
proprietary technologies, and that free software is taught as an
essential concept (like free speech) rather than something optional
(like "open source"), with an emphasis on copyleft (otherwise, we'd
be doing those companies a favor).

It would be ideal to teach free software and programming directly in
schools, but we all know that won't happen anytime soon for a number of
reasons, so I thought perhaps we could offer people some
*zero cost courses which ideally, should be recognized as valid
certifications* (can the FSF or FSFE help there, I wonder)?

Here's some people who might benefit from it, and that should be
especially targeted (since they are snubbed by all of society):

1. Poor, unemployed people [Easy]

   These are sad times. A lot of (especially young) people are
   committing suicide (or crimes, see point 3) due to unemployment (and
   its consequences, like the impossibility to start a family,
   homelessness, mental illness, addiction and debt) and automation is
   only going to reduce the number of available jobs in the future
   (except programmers, until they get replaced by AIs).

   Even if a Basic Income is implemented globally, those people would
   still have a lot of free time on their hands and depend completely
   on their government, which might hurt their dignity as well as
   require them to be "good citizens" and accept every potential future
   law in order to be eligible for the BI, some of which could force
   them to use proprietary software (since most countries are
   considering to ban encryption without backdoors, even if it's just
   mathematics, and it's hard to enforce such a ban unless proprietary
   software is also enforced; it isn't hard to imagine a world in which
   developing or even using free software requires explicit
   authorization, and only corporations and the government are granted
   it - even if such a regime would last very shortly).

   Teaching programming to these people can help them find a job in one
   of the few fields that won't be affected by automation anytime soon,
   and contributing to free software can offer them a chance to build
   their portfolios and CVs.

   If they want to keep contributing to free software after they find a
   job, good for them (and us); if they don't, at least they will know
   about free software, which is more than you can say about most
   people who work in IT nowadays (who are all about "open source",
   which often just means writing the same programs over and over in
   JavaScript using Sublime Text on Mac OS X and releasing them without
   any licensing info on Github).

2. Retired people [Medium]

   Retired people have a lot of time on their hands and they often
   are treated as if they are useless or unable to keep up with the
   younger generations, but I don't think that's true, and many of them
   are lonely and abandoned by their own families and would greatly
   benefit from the warmth of the free software community, as well as
   the sense of purpose that contributing to free software can offer
   (or maybe, just a nice hobby, or a side job because pensions are
   too low, especially now that many adults have to live with their
   parents due to unemployment, see point 1).

   The way old people are ignored and put aside in our technological
   world is cold and dehumanizing, and only free software can offer them
   a chance to participate (because, willing or not, even old people
   will be forced to interact with technology at some point).

   I spent a lot of time with old people in my life and I know they
   like to feel useful (or rather, helpful), just like everybody else.
   I'm Italian and in my country, old women who can't chew their own
   food will spend many hours preparing it for others, even when they
   are close to death, and feel happy and fulfilled when they see
   someone eat and enjoy it, even strangers.

   I think giving old people a second chance to participate in society
   is great, and that they have a lot of wisdom and perspective to offer
   that most of us don't have (especially when it comes to
   accessibility, UI and UX. If a granny can understand something,
   it means it's done properly).

   Plus, there are tons of old people who used to work in software
   development, it's just a matter of getting them into free
   software. People in retirement age include Larry Wall, who just
   helped create Perl 6, Ken Thompson & Rob Pike, co-creators of Go,
   Bjarne Stroustrup, who's making C++ better than ever and of course,
   RMS. I'm sure there's someone like them out there, maybe someone
   who's worked as a researcher or a C64 developer for many years and
   who can outcode even the leetest of us, and has never heard of free
   software but would jump on it if given the chance.

3. Prisoners [Hard]

   This can sound controversial - who would use a program
   knowing that it was written by a criminal?

   Ignoring the fact that authors can legally use a pseudonym, that
   I don't know anything about who wrote the programs I use daily,
   that a lot of people are arrested for nonviolent (often
   drug-related) offences and that some of them committed crimes due to
   hopelessness (see point 1), people have no issue listening to
   popular music or watching Hollywood films or mainstream sports, so
   I don't expect them to react differently to software.

   Some people who've been arrested are sincerely sorry for what
   they've done, are quietly paying their dues and would like to
   contribute back to society and to be offered a chance to reintegrate
   for when (if) they get out.
   (No need to mention those who are innocent or have been arrested
   under ridiculous charges, like free software developer Bassel
   Khartabil - I'm pretty sure that if he's alive, he'd rather write
   some free code than not. Please never forget about him, it could
   have been anyone who posts here!)

   Prisoners can already write books and record albums in some
   countries; there's no rational reason a prisoner shouldn't develop
   free software and even without access to the Internet, they still can
   write code that can be reviewed (for hidden messages) and submitted
   by authorities on their behalf, using a pseudonym if necessary.

   There are plenty of prisoners who can already program and most of
   the others would benefit from learning this trade, as they will
   likely be poor and unemployed when they get out (point 1), and even
   worse, with a criminal record. Why not give them a chance to have a
   better future, so that they are less likely to repeat their mistakes
   when they get out?

   Even if someone has been given a life sentence (the "hidden death
   penalty"), free software could give them another shot at life,
   something purposeful to look forward to and a chance to share
   something with the outside world, to redeem themselves and leave
   behind some good memories of them.

   Prison should aim to rehabilitate people, and free software can do
   that by teaching its altruistic values.

Teaching programming to as many people as possible, in general, can
only be helpful for the purpose of spreading free software. Let's say
you teach programming to 1000 people - even if all of them find a job
developing proprietary software (unlikely), the chance that at least
one of them (but realistically, more) will develop or promote free
software in their spare time and/or as part of their job is pretty high
compared to the chance people who haven't been taught the same have.

Of course, free software needs more than programmers. Designers and
people who can spread the word (some would call it "marketing") are
actually a bigger necessity right now - as we have plenty of free
replacements for proprietary programs but nobody is using them, like
Tox or GNU/Linux itself - but the idea is that spreading free software
awareness to the largest number of people possible will naturally also
bring in some who have those skills.

What do you think? Any programmers willing to share their knowledge with
everybody else?